Stopping the north from going to war with the south

Well if you really must provoke a war, I'd certainly argue that the latter course is the more sound one, but you have a fair point nonetheless. Lincoln's decision there was a direct cause of the Civil War. I wonder how aware he was of the certainty of this policy provoking war.... Probably quite aware. Again, removing Lincoln in favor of someone with less balls might honestly be enough.

Again though, Lincoln got a chance to resupply the fort because it was still occupied when most other federal installations had been unilaterally abandoned. Had it been abandoned prior, he would have had to do something else. And some things he could have done might not have elicited the desired aggression from the CSA.

Not necessarily, the South is going to have to get rid of Sumter sooner or later no matter which President rules the Union. If Sumter is retained, the CSA's a joke (which it was anyway, but still), if Sumter is attacked, CSA's the aggressor and things likely go as OTL.
 
Not necessarily, the South is going to have to get rid of Sumter sooner or later no matter which President rules the Union. If Sumter is retained, the CSA's a joke (which it was anyway, but still), if Sumter is attacked, CSA's the aggressor and things likely go as OTL.

Snake

Possibly, but as much as the northern claim if all they do is run food convoys to a couple of isolated forts? Sooner or later, without an outright military move either the government will get fed up of the expense and problems, the moral of the garrison will disintegrate or say the south will get international recognition.

The longer the break-away region is de-facto independent the more difficult it is for the north's claim to control them to be taken seriously by anybody.

Its just that as you say the hot-heads in the region were acting on their egos rather than thinking. It worked in the 1770s but the 1860s had drastically different circumstances.

Steve
 
Snake

Possibly, but as much as the northern claim if all they do is run food convoys to a couple of isolated forts? Sooner or later, without an outright military move either the government will get fed up of the expense and problems, the moral of the garrison will disintegrate or say the south will get international recognition.

The longer the break-away region is de-facto independent the more difficult it is for the north's claim to control them to be taken seriously by anybody.

Its just that as you say the hot-heads in the region were acting on their egos rather than thinking. It worked in the 1770s but the 1860s had drastically different circumstances.

Steve

The problem here is this scenario doesn't want the North to go to war with the South, but does nothing to keep the South from going to war with the North.
 
I agree, letting the forts sit is probably the smart play for the South. The longer the South continues on without a war, the more likely it is that everyone, including the North, accepts their independence. And, once the North responds with an anti-secession constitutional amendment, a few of the upper south states probably join the confederacy too.

However, a South capable of this kind of restraint wouldn't have seceded in the first place.

Snake

Possibly, but as much as the northern claim if all they do is run food convoys to a couple of isolated forts? Sooner or later, without an outright military move either the government will get fed up of the expense and problems, the moral of the garrison will disintegrate or say the south will get international recognition.

The longer the break-away region is de-facto independent the more difficult it is for the north's claim to control them to be taken seriously by anybody.

Its just that as you say the hot-heads in the region were acting on their egos rather than thinking. It worked in the 1770s but the 1860s had drastically different circumstances.

Steve
 
The problem here is this scenario doesn't want the North to go to war with the South, but does nothing to keep the South from going to war with the North.

I agree, letting the forts sit is probably the smart play for the South. The longer the South continues on without a war, the more likely it is that everyone, including the North, accepts their independence. And, once the North responds with an anti-secession constitutional amendment, a few of the upper south states probably join the confederacy too.

However, a South capable of this kind of restraint wouldn't have seceded in the first place.

I agree. An interesting idea but the impatience of some of the southern leaders makes it working seems highly unlikely.

Steve
 
Is there a way to make the Union unable to effectively make war against the CSA after secession, instead recognizing the confederate government and allowing it to exist?

If Virginia, NC and Kentucky all loudly proclaim their 'neutrality' (i.e. they aren't succeeding, but neither will they allow armed troops from either side across their territory), the Union is going to have a heck of a job projecting force against the south. Trying amphibious landings in e.g. South Carolina will likely be a disaster, and trying to attack down the Mississippi (again, especially if Kentucky is neutral) would be a major effort.
 
I once did a little study and research on the Supreme Court at the time to try and determine which way the court would vote on the secession issue. I came up with a 5-4 against secession. However a lot is going to have to be changed to get the courts involved in solving the problem.

When Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, there were only 8 Justices on the Supreme Court. (One dissenter had resigned in protest over the Dred Scott decision and not been replaced.) Justice McClean, the other dissenter against the Dred Scott Decision died April 4, 1861. Justice Campbell resigned from the Court on April 30, 1861, and joined the Confederacy.

The Confederates are unlikely to get any case for secession to the court before Lincoln's election, but if they try I suspect expect Campbell would stay through the end of the case.

OTOH, with Lincoln being able to appoint 2 of the 9 Justices, the Confederates may not want to risk a case before the Supreme Court.
 
What if secession was already decided legal by the Supreme Court over another issue?

Say that after Texas joined the union, it turned out that there had been seriously blackmail and bribery to get them to do it. This causes public disgust in Texas and a successful movement for independence to nullify the decision just two years after they joined. Southern leaders challenge this in the Supreme Court due to worry about the free-slave balance, but a northern sympathetic Supreme Court backs the vote.

Twenty years later, for Northerners to oppose secession of other states as illegal would be such hypocrisy they don't dare do it.
 
No political decision has ever been affected by the Constitution. The Justices can say what they please; let them, as Jackson said, enforce it.

Not that the Justices have ever been influenced by the Constitution either.
 
Top